DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the limitations of “the connector according to claim 17 . . .” are ambiguous and indefinite because parent claim 17 does not claim a connector. Claim 17 includes only a terminal socket. The limitations of claim 19 regarding “the corresponding slots . . .” lack antecedent basis and are ambiguous as to what they refer to. The limitations are given little weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the anticipatory rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2009/016243 (“Kent”). Regarding claim 1, Kent discloses a terminal socket 10 for an electrical terminal system configured to be mated with a terminal pin along a mating direction, the terminal socket comprising:
a wiring portion (labeled WP below) and an electrical contacting portion (labeled CP below),
the electrical contacting portion including a main body (labeled MB below) with a hollow space for receiving the mating terminal pin, wherein the main body has an external shape having a triangularly shaped portion triangularly shaped in a plane perpendicular to the mating direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
980
1006
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per claim 2, the hollow space includes a triangularly shaped portion in said plane.
Per claim 3, the hollow space includes three electrical contacting portions (e.g., 21a, 22a, 23a) configured to engage with the mating terminal pin.
Per claim 12, Kent discloses a terminal socket for an electrical terminal system configured to be mated with a terminal pin along a mating direction, the terminal socket comprising:
a wiring portion (WP above) and an electrical contacting portion (CP above), the electrical contacting portion including a main body (MB above) with a hollow space for receiving the mating terminal pin, wherein the main body has an external shape not showing a twofold rotational symmetry in a plane perpendicular to the mating direction, and in that the hollow space does not show a twofold rotational symmetry in said plane.
Per claim 13, Kent discloses a terminal system comprising:
a terminal socket 10 including a wiring portion (WP above) and an electrical contacting portion (CP above), the electrical contacting portion including a main body (MB above) with a hollow space, wherein the main body has an external shape having a triangularly shaped portion triangularly shaped in a plane perpendicular to the mating direction; and
a mating terminal pin 60 received in the hollow space and configured to be mated with the terminal socket.
Per claim 14, the mating terminal pin includes an electrical contacting portion with a triangularly shaped portion configured to be received in the terminal socket.
Per claim 15, the entire electrical contacting portion is triangularly shaped.
Per claim 17 and 19, the hollow space includes a triangularly shaped portion in said plane, the hollow space having three electrical contacting portions configured to engage with the mating terminal pin.
Per claim 18, Kent discloses a connector comprising:
a connector housing 50 inherently having slots; and
a plurality of terminal sockets (see discussion regarding claim 1) received in the corresponding slots, each terminal socket including a wiring portion and an electrical contacting portion configured to be mated with a terminal pin along a mating direction, the electrical contacting portion including a main body with a hollow space for receiving the mating terminal pin, wherein the main body has an external shape having a triangularly shaped portion triangularly shaped in a plane perpendicular to the mating direction.
Per claim 20, the hollow space includes a triangularly shaped portion in said plane, the hollow space having three electrical contacting portions configured to engage with the mating terminal pin.
Claim Rejections - and 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Suemitsu et al. US 2006/0035538 (“Suemitsu”).
Regarding claim 4, Kent does not disclose a bulge.
Suemitsu discloses a socket where the main body includes at least one bulge (at 111a) formed on an internal surface of the main body, the at least one bulge defining a contacting portion.
It would have been obvious to form the Kent spring arms 21a, 22a, 23a with bulges as the contacting point as was well known in the art and as taught by Suemitsu at arm 111 including bulge 111a. The reason would have been to improve the contact between the pin and socket as was well known in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Kent does not disclose a bulge.
Suemitsu discloses a socket where the main body includes at least one bulge (at 111a) formed on an internal surface of the main body, the at least one bulge defining a contacting portion.
It would have been obvious to form the Kent spring arms 21a, 22a, 23a with bulges as the contacting point as was well known in the art and as taught by Suemitsu at arm 111 including bulge 111a. The reason would have been to improve the contact between the pin and socket as was well known in the art. The resulting terminal would include one bulge on each side of the triangular shape.
Regarding claim 6, Kent does not disclose a bulge.
Suemitsu discloses a socket where the main body includes at least one bulge (at 111a) formed on an internal surface of the main body, the at least one bulge defining a contacting portion.
It would have been obvious to form the Kent spring arms 21a, 22a, 23a with bulges as the contacting point as was well known in the art and as taught by Suemitsu at arm 111 including bulge 111a. The reason would have been to improve the contact between the pin and socket as was well known in the art. The resulting terminal would include one bulge on each side of the triangular shape.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Bouda et al. US 6305992 (“Bouda”). Regarding claim 7, Kent does not disclose that the triangularly shaped portion of the main body is acute. Bouda discloses socket 1 where wall 6 is shorter than inclined side walls 4 and 5. It would have been obvious to form the Kent socket with one wall shorter than the adjacent side walls as taught in Bouda. The result would be that the triangularly shaped portion of the main body is acute. Regarding the particular shape, the shape of would have been a matter of engineering design choice. See In re In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Hoffman US 3965147. Kent does not disclose that the triangularly shaped portion of the main body is isosceles or scalene. Hoffman discloses a terminal where the triangularly shaped portion of the main body is isosceles or scalene (figure 5). It would have been obvious to form the triangularly shaped portion of the Kent main body as isosceles or scalene as taught in Hoffman. Regarding the particular shape, the shape of would have been a matter of engineering design choice. See In re In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent. Kent discloses that the terminal is stamped and bent from a metallic sheet Kent does not disclose the sheet having a thickness of less than 0.2 mm. Regarding the particular dimensions of the sheet thickness, to the extent that Kent does not specify dimensions, at the time of the invention, workable dimensions of the sheet thickness would have been a matter of routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (CCPA 1977). Variations in the thickness would have been obvious minor adjustments without patentable significance. See In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)(Where general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Kameyama US 6231387. Kent does not disclose that the triangularly shaped portion of the main body includes an area wherein the bent metallic sheet overlaps. Kameyama discloses a socket terminal where the triangularly shaped portion of the main body includes an area wherein the bent metallic sheet overlaps (see figure 2A at lead line 10). It would have been obvious to form the Kent socket with overlapping portions at the joint where opposing sides of the metal sheet meet (at 24). The reason would have been to make the socket stiffer in the directions perpendicular to the mating direction as was known in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Kondo et al. US 11531142 (“Kondo”). Kent does not disclose the triangularly shaped portion of the main body comprises an area wherein the bent metallic sheet is welded shut. Kondo discloses a socket where the joint where closing the socket is welded shut (at RW). It would have been obvious to weld shut the Kent joint where the edges of the sheet (at 24) meet to close the socket as taught in Kondo. The reason would have been to make the socket stiffer in the directions perpendicular to the mating direction as was known in the art.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kent in view of Kerek US 6004172. Kent does not disclose that the mating terminal pin includes an electrical contacting portion having the shape of a pointed cylinder. Kerek discloses a mating terminal pin including an electrical contacting portion having the shape of a pointed cylinder (at 17). It would have been obvious to substitute well known cylindrical male terminals, such as taught in Kerek, for the male terminal taught in Kent. The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One with ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ.2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROSS GUSHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2005. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30 - 5:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koehler can be reached on 571-272-3560. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROSS N GUSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2834